This caused a (predictable) firestorm, which some of you may remember seeing:
http://dailyprincetonian.com/opinion/2013/03/letter-to-the-editor-advice-for-the-young-women-of-princeton-the-daughters-i-never-had/RE: the 100k threshold - even though she says this, it's my impression that it isn't actually an income floor that she wants; I think she's struggling to articulate what exactly she wants and has instead pegged it to an arbitrary monetary benchmark.
A 100k income could be thought of as a proxy for "having your shit together career-wise and on stable footing". Or, perhaps what she's after is a feeling of security in her relationships, and is conflating financial resources with stability and the relationship high-ground. Or, perhaps she bore witness to money-related anguish at home growing up and wants to head off such issues for herself (by surrounding herself with bounty). Agree with sol upthread that the manner in which this is expressed is somewhat repellent, however.
Either way, she's missing part of the picture in her assessment: Many truly wealthy people have significant assets, yet don't earn 100k, and especially not according to the tax man. If indeed her preferences can be traced back to a misguided quest for resource security, her narrow scope may be missing fire in pursuit of smoke.
My own experience with dating and relationships suggests to me that maybe humans are really terrible at determining exactly what we're looking for in a partner. If my GF and I had crossed paths via a dating site, I likely never would have given her a chance because the construct I had in my head of the "ideal partner" would have gotten in the way.